a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Committee on International 

Relations, House of Representatives

July 2003 U.S. INTERNATIONAL 

BROADCASTING

New Strategic 

Approach Focuses on 

Reaching Large 

Audiences but Lacks 

Measurable Program 

Objectives

GAO-03-772
Consistent with its new plan to dramatically increase the size of U.S. 

international broadcasting listening and viewing audiences in markets of 

U.S. strategic interest, the Broadcasting Board of Governors has launched 

several new projects, including Radio Sawa in the Middle East, Radio Farda 

in Iran, and the Afghanistan Radio Network. These projects adhere to the 

Board’s core strategy of identifying a target audience and tailoring each 

broadcast product to market circumstances and audience needs. 

The Board’s plan lacks measurable program objectives designed to gauge the 

success of its new approach to broadcasting, detailed implementation 

strategies, resource needs, and project time frames. A number of key 

effectiveness measures could provide a starting point for developing 

measurable program objectives and related performance goals and 

indicators under the Board’s annual performance plan. These measures 

include audience size in specific markets, audience awareness, broadcaster 

credibility, and whether the Voice of America (VOA) effectively presents 

information about U.S. thought, institutions, and policies to target audiences.

The Board has identified a number of market and internal challengessuch 

as technological innovation and better coordination of its seven separate 

broadcast entitiesthat must be addressed to make U.S. international 

broadcasting more competitive. It has also developed a number of solutions 

to address these challenges. However, the Board has not addressed how 

many language services it can carry effectively (with the number rising 

nearly 20 percent over the past 10 years) and what level of overlap and 

duplication in VOA and surrogate broadcast services would be appropriate 

under its new approach to broadcasting. Resolving these questions will have 

significant resource implications for the Board and its ability to reach larger 

audiences in high-priority markets. 

Language Service Overlap as of April 2003 

Prompted by a desire to reverse 

declining audience trends and to 

support the war on terrorism, the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors 

(BBG), the agency responsible for 

U.S. international broadcasting, 

began developing its new strategic 

approach to international 

broadcasting in July 2001. This 

approach emphasizes the need to 

reach mass audiences by applying 

modern broadcast techniques and 

strategically allocating resources to 

focus on high-priority markets. 

GAO was asked to examine (1) 

whether recent program initiatives 

have adhered to the Board's new 

strategic approach to broadcasting, 

(2) how the approach’s 

effectiveness will be assessed, and 

(3) what critical challenges the 

Board faces in executing its 

strategy and how these challenges 

will be addressed. 

GAO makes recommendations to 

the BBG on (1) revising its strategic 

plan to include measurable 

program objectives, 

implementation strategies, 

resource requirements, and project 

time frames; (2) including audience 

size and other key effectiveness 

measures as program objectives in 

the strategic plan; (3) revising its 

annual performance plan to track 

the Board’s revised strategic plan; 

and (4) revising the strategic plan 

to include a clear vision of the 

Board’s intended scope of 

operations. The Board stated that it 

largely concurred with our report 

recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-772 

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Jess Ford at 

(202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-772, a report to the 

Committee on International Relations, 

House of Representatives 

July 2003 

U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

New Strategic Approach Focuses on 

Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks 

Measurable Program Objectives 
Page i GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Projects Supporting War on Terrorism Adhere to Board’s New 

Approach 10

Effectiveness Is Difficult to Assess Absent Measurable Program 

Objectives 14

Board Plans to Address Many Challenges, but Scope of Operations 

May Limit Its Impact 18

Conclusions 26

Recommendations for Executive Action 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Scope and Methodology 28

Appendixes

Appendix I: Challenges Facing U.S. International Broadcasting 30

Appendix II: Survey Development 32

Appendix III: Survey of Program Managers of U.S. International 

Broadcasting Entities 33

Appendix IV: Comments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors 47

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 50

GAO Contact 50

Acknowledgments 50

Tables Table 1: The Board’s Recently Implemented Initiatives 11

Table 2: Costs of BBG New Initiatives 13

Table 3: Planned Actions and Additional Options 23

Table 4: Board-Identified Challenges 30

Table 5: Proposed SolutionsStrategic Goals and Objectives 31

Figures Figure 1: U.S. Public Diplomacy Community 5

Figure 2: The Board’s New Strategic Plan 8
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Abbreviations

ARN Afghanistan Radio Network

BBG Broadcasting Board of Governors

CEO Chief Executive Officer

COO Chief Operating Officer

IBB International Broadcasting Bureau

OMB Office of Management and Budget

RFA Radio Free Asia

RFE/RL Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool

VOA Voice of America

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

July 15, 2003 Letr

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde

Chairman 

The Honorable Tom Lantos

Ranking Minority Member

International Relations Committee

House of Representatives

Millions of foreign listeners and viewers turn each week to U.S. 

international broadcasting to obtain news and information about the 

United States and the world. However, the United States’ share in several 

broadcast markets has been declining or static for decades due to 

increasing competition and an outdated approach to broadcasting. 

Prompted by a desire to reverse this trend and a sense of urgency created 

by the war on terrorism, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG or the 

“Board”),1

 the agency responsible for nonmilitary U.S. international 

broadcasting programs, initiated a new strategic approach to international 

broadcasting in July 2001. The new strategy emphasizes the need to reach 

large audiences by applying modern broadcast techniques and strategically 

allocating resources to focus on high-priority broadcast markets, such as 

the Middle East.

The BBG and the Department of State share an annual budget of about $1 

billion for public diplomacy activities designed to inform, engage, and 

influence foreign audiences. The BBG manages and oversees the Voice of 

America (VOA), WorldNet Television and Film Service, Radio/TV Marti, 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and Radio 

Farda (collectively referred to as the broadcast entities). This report 

focuses on the BBG’s public diplomacy efforts. A planned follow-on report 

will assess the Department of State’s public diplomacy efforts.

1

Congress created the BBG when it passed the United States International Broadcasting Act 

of 1994 (title III of P.L. 103-236), which sought to reorganize and consolidate U.S. 

international broadcasting efforts in light of the end of the Cold War and administrative 

efforts to meet deficit reduction targets. The Board is composed of nine voting members. 

Eight members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 3-year 

terms. The ninth member of the Board is the Secretary of State. Under the Foreign Affairs 

Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277), the BBG was removed from the U.S. 

Information Agency and established as an independent entity.
Page 2 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

As agreed with your staff, this report examines (1) whether recent program 

initiatives have adhered to the Board's new strategic approach to 

broadcasting, (2) how the approach’s effectiveness will be assessed, and 

(3) what critical challenges the Board faces in executing its strategy and 

how these challenges will be addressed.

To accomplish our objectives, we met with individual Board members and 

senior managers from each broadcast entity (including Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty officials in Prague) to discuss a range of management 

issues including the Board’s new 5-year strategic plan (titled “Marrying the 

Mission to the Market” and issued in December 2002), which defines the 

Board’s new approach to broadcasting. We met with foreign ministry 

officials in London and Berlin and broadcasting officials from the British 

Broadcasting Corporation in London and Deutsche Welle in Cologne and 

Berlin to compare their respective approaches to public diplomacy and 

international broadcasting with the Board’s activities. We also met with 

several private sector audience research firms to discuss a range of 

performance management and measurement issues. Finally, we 

administered a survey to 34 senior program managers across all 7 BBG 

broadcast entities to obtain their views on strategic planning, current 

operations, program challenges, and various program options.

Results in Brief Consistent with its new strategic approach to broadcasting, the Board has 

initiated several new programs focusing on attracting larger audiences in 

priority markets and supporting the war on terrorism. Launched in March 

2002, Radio Sawa in the Middle East replaced VOA’s Arabic-language 

service and represents the Board's first attempt to implement the new 

tailored approach to broadcasting. Based on extensive research of the 

target audience, Radio Sawa incorporates brief news bulletins in a popular 

music format aimed at young listeners. A new initiative in Afghanistan 

called the Afghanistan Radio Network and a language service to Iran called 

Radio Farda also have adhered to the Board's new broadcasting approach 

and support the Board’s efforts in the war on terrorism. Estimated start-up 

and recurring costs for these three projects through fiscal year 2003 total 

about $116 million. As funds become available, the Board intends to launch 

other high-priority projects using its new broadcasting approach, such as 

an Arabic language television network in the Middle East. 

While the Board’s new approach to broadcasting is based on the need to 

reach large audiences in priority markets, there is not a single long-term 

strategic goal or related program objective to gauge the Board’s success in 
Page 3 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

increasing audience size. Further, the strategic goals that are included in 

the plan (for example, employing modern broadcast techniques, assuring 

broadcaster credibility, and telling America’s story) are not supported by 

measurable program objectives and do not provide a basis for assessing the 

Board’s performance in these key areas. While we recognize that measuring 

impact is complex, we identified a number of key effectiveness measures 

that could form a starting point for creating measurable program objectives 

that support the full range of the Board’s strategic goals. These measures 

include audience size in specific markets; audience awareness of BBG 

broadcasting; the credibility of U.S. language service broadcasts; and 

whether VOA language services effectively present information about U.S. 

thought, institutions, and policies to target audiences. 

The Board’s key challenge in executing its strategy is how to generate large 

audiences while dealing with a number of market, organizational, and 

resource issues. The Board identified several shortcomings in U.S. market 

competitiveness including outdated programs and delivery systems. It 

plans to overcome these problems by promoting, among other things, new 

formats and technologies. Topping the list of organizational challenges is 

the disparate structure of the agency, which consists of seven separate 

broadcast entities and a mix of federal agency and grantee organizations 

that must be collectively managed by a part-time Board of Governors. To 

overcome this challenge, the Board proposes treating the broadcast 

services of the separate entities as a “single system” under the Board’s 

direct control and ongoing oversight. While the Board’s solutions to many 

of its challenges may suffice, our analysis revealed that a number of other 

program options could be considered in the future if the Board’s efforts 

falter or prove ineffective. One option would be to further consolidate all 

entities into one organization to streamline the management structure, 

simplify budget and programming decisions, and reduce duplicative staff 

and functions. Finally, the Board has concluded that the agency’s resources 

are currently spread across too many language services. We found strong 

support among BBG managers for cutting the number of language services 

to focus resources on a limited number of priority markets. However, the 

Board has not established a strategic vision for how many languages should 

be pursued and what level of overlap and duplication among its many 

entities is appropriate. 

This report makes several recommendations to the Board to help improve 

agency operations and measurement of program performance. The Board 

provided written comments on a draft of this report and largely concurred 

with our report recommendations. 
Page 4 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Background U.S. international broadcasting efforts support the three key objectives of 

U.S. public diplomacy, which are to engage, inform, and influence overseas 

audiences. As a news organization, the BBG must maintain its journalistic 

independence while also serving U.S. strategic interests as a member of the 

public diplomacy apparatus. To fulfill this latter role, the BBG seeks input 

from the Department of State and the larger public diplomacy community 

in formulating its broadcast plans and making annual decisions on the 

deletion and addition of language services. The Secretary of State serves as 

a member of the Board, further strengthening coordination efforts. Within 

the BBG, VOA, Radio/TV Marti, and WorldNet Television, are organized as 

federal entities, while Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free 

Asia operate as independent, nonprofit corporations and are funded by 

Board grants. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and 

Radio/TV Marti function as “surrogate” broadcasters where a local free 

press does not exist. Congress created the International Broadcasting 

Bureau (IBB)2

 in 1994 in an effort to streamline and consolidate certain 

broadcast operations.

Figure 1 illustrates the Board’s placement in the U.S. public diplomacy 

hierarchy and its current organizational structure.

2

The IBB currently provides transmission services to all U.S. broadcast operations. It also 

provides management oversight and support services such as audience research and 

marketing to VOA, WorldNet Television, and Radio/TV Marti.
Page 5 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Figure 1: U.S. Public Diplomacy Community 

a

Relevant White House Offices include the National Security Council and the Office of Global 

Communications.

b

While not considered a major public diplomacy player, USAID activities contribute to U.S. public 

relations and media development efforts.

Each U.S. broadcast entity is organized around a collection of language 

services that produce program content. In some instances, both VOA and a 

surrogate broadcaster run “overlapping” services due to the different 

missions pursued by VOA and the surrogates. For example, both VOA and 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty have their own Russian language service. 
Page 6 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

The BBG currently has a collection of 97 language services—with a 55 

percent overlap between VOA and the surrogates broadcasting in the same 

language.

The Mission of U.S. 

International Broadcasting

Each broadcast entity has its own legislated mandate. VOA’s mandate is to 

(1) serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate, objective, 

and comprehensive source of news; (2) represent America, not any single 

segment of American society, and therefore present a balanced and 

comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions; 

and (3) present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively and 

also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.3 In 

contrast, the role of the surrogate broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV Marti) is to temporarily replace the 

local media of countries where a free and open press does not exist. 

WorldNet Television and Film Service provides production and distribution 

support for television broadcasts developed by VOA and the Department of 

State. The Board’s public diplomacy mandate also includes helping to 

develop independent media and raising journalistic standards where 

possible.

The Board’s New Strategic 

Approach

The Board’s new approach to broadcasting represents an ambitious 

attempt to reach larger audiences in key markets. To do this, it seeks 

creative solutions that prioritize the use of limited resources and marry the 

mission of U.S. international broadcasting to the needs and wants of target 

audiences. The Board’s new strategic plan was issued in December 2002; 

however, development of its new approach to broadcasting began in July 

2001. The plan was developed to address declining audience share in key 

markets such as Russia and historically static performance in key strategic 

regions such as the Middle East. For example, the BBG had a 21 percent 

market share in Russia in the early 1990s that has declined to about 4 

percent of the adult listening audience in recent years. In the Middle East, 

the VOA’s Arabic service has for decades reached less than 2 percent of 

potential listeners. 

3

VOA also serves as a surrogate broadcaster in information-deprived countries in Africa 

since Congress has not established a separate surrogate entity for this region.
Page 7 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

The Board’s new plan outlines a strategic vision for U.S. international 

broadcasting that is designed to move the organization toward a marketbased approach that will generate the large listening audiences in priority 

markets that the Board believes it must reach to effectively meet its 

mission. Early implementation of the plan has focused on markets relevant

to the war on terrorism;4 however, the Board intends that many elements of 

its new approach will be applied to many of its language services over time. 

The Board’s vision is to create a flexible, multimedia, research-driven U.S. 

international broadcasting system. This system will incorporate regional 

networks and single-country operations to reach large audiences by 

programming the distinct content of VOA and the surrogate services 

through state-of-the-art formats and distribution channels controlled by the 

Board.

Figure 2 provides an overview of the Board’s new strategic plan and shows 

the links among the Board’s mission statement, vision statement, broadcast 

priorities, strategic goals, and program objectives. Appendix I provides a 

complete list of the goals and objectives.

4

One of the Board’s key objectives is to provide support to the war on terrorism through 

anti-terrorism broadcasting. The Board views recent initiatives in the Middle East, such as 

Radio Sawa, as examples of its new approach and as a major initiative supporting the war 

on terrorism.
Page 8 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Figure 2: The Board’s New Strategic Plan 

Strategic plans play a critical role in the management of agency operations. 

Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes clear 

that agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 

performance reports form the basis for a comprehensive and integrated
Page 9 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

approach to performance management.5 In the Board’s case, its 

performance management is augmented by an ongoing series of program 

reviews of individual language services conducted each year6

 and an 

annual comparative review of all language services. Program reviews are 

in-depth assessments of performance conducted by a team of management, 

audience research experts, technical staff, and language service staff. The 

comparative review of language services represents an intensive 4-month 

review by the Board designed to evaluate the need for adding or deleting 

language services and strategically reallocating funds to the language 

services on the basis of priority and impact. This year, the Board asked 

eight language services to prepare individual performance plans that 

capture key elements of the Board’s new strategic approach to 

broadcasting, including the need to identify a target audience and establish 

specific audience goals.7

 These performance plans will become the focus of 

future program reviews and form the final link in a planned performance 

management system that will integrate the Board’s strategic plan, 

performance plan, annual language service review, budget preparation 

process, and program reviews into a unified whole. The strategic plan 

forms the heart of this system since it should provide the performance 

goals and measures that drive the Board’s entire operations.

5

OMB guidance notes that agency strategic plans may include multiyear strategic goals that 

are not subject to direct measurement. However, these goals must be supported by 

measurable program objectives that provide a long-term basis for assessing whether an 

agency’s strategic goals are being met. Annual progress toward achieving agency program 

objectives should be tracked through the performance goals and indicators in an agency’s 

performance plan under the Government Performance and Results Act. See Circular No. A11, Part 6, Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, 

and Annual Program Performance Reports; Office of Management and Budget 

(Washington, D.C.: June 2002).

6

These two components of the Board’s performance management system were addressed in 

detail in our last report on U.S. international broadcasting. U.S. General Accounting Office, 

U.S. International Broadcasting: Strategic Planning and Performance Management 

System Could be Improved, GAO/NSIAD-00-222 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2000).

7

These languages fall in the Near East Asia and South Asia region targeted for evaluation as 

part of OMB’s new Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) exercise, which is designed to 

support the budget and performance integration component of the President’s Management 

Agenda. Under the PART process, approximately 20 percent of agency programs were 

supposed to be covered during the formulation of the fiscal year 2004 budget, with other 

programs to be annually added to the assessment in future years.
Page 10 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Projects Supporting 

War on Terrorism 

Adhere to Board’s New 

Approach

Consistent with the plan’s theme of “marrying the mission to the market,” 

the Board has applied its new audience-focused broadcasting approach to 

recent initiatives supporting the war on terrorism. The first project under 

the new approach, Radio Sawa in the Middle East, was launched in March 

2002 using many of the modern, market-tested broadcasting techniques and 

practices prescribed in the plan, in an effort to attract a larger, younger 

population. Follow-on program initiatives also adhere to the Board’s 

modern approach to broadcasting, though application is tailored to the 

specific circumstances of each target market. These initiatives include the 

Afghanistan Radio Network (ARN) and the new Radio Farda service to 

Iran. Estimated start-up and recurring costs for these three projects 

through fiscal year 2003 total about $116 million. As funds become 

available, there are plans to extend application of the Board’s new 

approach to other high-priority markets, such as Indonesia. In addition, the 

Board hopes to further expand its presence in the Middle East through the 

launch of a Middle East Television Network. Future initiatives are expected 

to require additional reallocation of funds and possible supplemental 

spending by Congress. 

Application Tailored to 

Market Circumstances 

The Board has tailored the use of its modern, audience-focused approach 

to broadcasting, taking target audiences and market circumstances into 

consideration when developing and implementing new program initiatives. 

Table 1 provides a brief description of recently implemented projects 

supporting the war on terrorism.
Page 11 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Table 1: The Board’s Recently Implemented Initiatives

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

a

Radio Sawa’s four programming streams are directed at Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and the 

Persian Gulf countries (i.e., Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, etc.) and reflect regional 

tastes and interests.

b

Radio Free Afghanistan was launched by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in December 

2001 in an effort to build a peaceful and democratic Afghanistan. This service was 

congressionally authorized.

Radio Sawa The first program under the Board’s new approach, Radio Sawa in the 

Middle East, was launched using modern, market-tested broadcasting 

techniques and practices, such as the extensive use of music formats, to 

improve performance in this priority market and lend support to the war on 

terrorism by targeting youth audiences. Although music remains a large 

part of the programming on Radio Sawa, the proportion of news and 

information to music is steadily increasing, peaking at 5-hours a day during 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Radio Sawa replaced the poorly performing VOA 

Arabic service, which had listening rates at around 2 percent of the 

population. The Board has survey research indicating that Radio Sawa is 

reaching 51 percent of its target audience and is ranked highest for news 

and news trustworthiness in Amman, Jordan. Despite such results, it 

remains unclear how many people Radio Sawa is actually reaching 

throughout the Middle East because audience research has been performed 

only in select markets and has not yet included audiences in key markets 

like Saudi Arabia.

Initiative Launch date Project description

Radio Sawa March 2002 A modern Arabic-language network that broadcasts music, news, and information to 

young people in the Middle East via a combination of FM, medium wave, short wave, 

digital audio satellite, and Internet transmission resources. The network uses four 24-

hour, seven-days-a-week regional programming streams.a

ARN August 2002 The network combines the distinct news and information program content of Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty’s Radio Free Afghanistanb

 and VOA’s Dari and Pashtu language 

services into a closely coordinated, single programming stream targeting the broad 

Afghani population. The network currently broadcasts 24 hours, seven days a week on 

FM and the Internet.

Radio Farda December 2002 Radio Farda integrates the distinct music, news, and information content of VOA and 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty into a single programming stream targeting youth in 

Iran. It broadcasts 24 hours a day, seven days a week via medium wave, digital audio 

satellite, and the Internet. It also broadcasts 21 hours a day via short wave.
Page 12 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Afghanistan Radio Network The Afghanistan Radio Network was launched in August 2002 to more 

effectively use and strengthen the impact of BBG broadcasting resources 

targeted to Afghanistan, a key market for the war on terrorism. ARN 

utilizes broadcasting concepts outlined in the Board’s new strategic 

approach, such as tailoring content to the target audience and integrating 

programming streams across entities. Unlike Radio Sawa, ARN is not 

primarily designed to reach a youth audience but a broader Afghani 

audience. Programs are designed to be locally focused and are high in 

educational, news, and information content. BBG service to Afghanistan 

has in the past yielded some of the Board’s highest listening rates (in 1999 

around 80 percent of adult male heads-of-household). Recent BBG 

research indicates that the Board is reaching about 45 percent of all male 

and female adults in the listening regions of Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif.

Radio Farda Radio Farda was launched to strengthen the impact of BBG broadcasting 

resources targeted to Iran, another key market for the war on terrorism. 

Based on audience research and an analysis of specific market factors in 

Iran, the Board tailored the plan’s elements to Radio Farda. Radio Farda 

uses modern broadcast techniques to attract a youth target audience. 

Although it uses music formats, Radio Farda also strives to provide 

substantial news and information. The Board claims that increases in the 

volume of e-mail and phone calls from the region indicate that the service is 

gaining popularity among the target audience in Iran. 

Other New Initiatives The Board is planning other program initiatives in support of the war on 

terrorism, and plans indicate that the Board will selectively apply its new 

broadcasting approach to these projects. Future initiatives include 

enhancements to the VOA Indonesian and Urdu services and creation of a 

Middle East Television Network, which represents the single largest 

enhancement to the Board’s operations in the coming year. Still in the 

planning stages, the Middle East Television Network will be an 18- to 24-

hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week, U.S.-controlled satellite TV service 

presenting what the Board sees as American-style news and information 

programs in the Arabic language to counter the lack of depth and balance 

in the Middle Eastern media. As television is the most important medium in 

the region for news and information, the Board expects to significantly 

increase its audience size with this initiative.
Page 13 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Projected Costs of the New 

Strategy Are Significant

Certain elements of the Board’s new plan will require substantial levels of 

investments. Such elements include broadcasting round-the-clock, using 

audience research and music formats extensively, and reaching audiences 

on Board-controlled AM and FM frequencies. Other elements do not 

require as substantial capital investments, such as identifying target 

audiences and redesigning program content to appeal to these audiences. 

Just as Radio Sawa, ARN, and Radio Farda incorporate the Board’s new 

broadcasting approach to varying degrees, the Board has stated in its 

strategic plan that it will apply certain high-cost elements of its new 

approach on a case-by-case basis. It cannot afford to broadly apply all 

elements to all language services, and some markets do not require such 

changes for U.S. international broadcasting to remain competitive. Table 2 

provides a cost summary of recently implemented high-priority projects.

Table 2: Costs of BBG New Initiatives 

Source: GAO analysis of BBG data.

N/A = Not applicable.

The estimated price tags for other priority initiatives, such as the Middle 

East Television Network and the expansion of the VOA Indonesian service, 

are also significant. For example, the Board estimates that it will cost about 

$62 million to initiate the Middle East Television Network and an additional 

$37 million annually for recurring operational costs. Expanding VOA 

Indonesian radio and TV programming is estimated to cost an additional 

$3.4 million. Cost estimates for the VOA Urdu service program expansion 

are not yet available because the Board has not finalized its plans for this 

project.

Dollars in millions

Sawa ARN Farda

One time capital costs (paid in FY 2001 or 

2002) $10.5 $19.6 N/A

Additional expected capital costs (paid in FY 

2003) $21.6 $1.8 $1.0

Annual operating expenses (paid in FY 

2002) $11.7 $9.6 N/A

Projected annual operating expenses (paid 

in FY 2003) $20.6 $13.4 $6.2

Total project costs (through FY 2003) $64.4 $44.4 $7.2 $116.0
Page 14 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Some of the Board’s recent priority projects have been funded in part by 

reallocation of program funds under the Board’s annual language service 

review process. For example, the Board funded Radio Farda by 

reprogramming more than $5.6 million in fiscal year 2003 funds and also 

helped pay for Radio Sawa by reprogramming approximately $4.1 million in 

fiscal year 2001 funds from other language services. 

Effectiveness Is 

Difficult to Assess 

Absent Measurable 

Program Objectives

The Board’s new approach to broadcasting is based on the need to reach 

large audiences in priority markets, but its strategic plan does not include a 

single goal or related program objective designed to gauge progress toward 

increasing audience size. In addition, the plan’s seven existing strategic 

goals (for example, to employ modern communication techniques or to 

revitalize efforts to tell America’s story) are not supported by measurable 

program objectives that would allow the Board and others to gauge the 

agency’s progress in implementing its strategic goals.

8 While the plan lacks 

a range of measurable program objectives, key effectiveness measures that 

could be incorporated in future versions of the Board’s strategic plan 

include audience awareness of U.S. broadcast efforts, audience 

perceptions of the credibility of U.S. broadcasts, and whether VOA 

effectively presents information about the United States and its policies to 

target audiences. Efforts to assess the effectiveness of the Board’s new 

approach to broadcasting may also be hampered by the lack of details on 

how the Board intends to implement each of its program objectives. 

Missing from the plan are specifics on implementation strategies, resource 

requirements, and project time frames.9

 The Board has acknowledged that

8

Our observations on these missing elements are mirrored in OMB’s summary report on this 

year’s implementation of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. OMB’s report in the 

President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request notes that “the [BBG] program scored poorly in 

strategic planning, primarily because the long-term and annual goals are vague and do not 

include time frames and measurable targets.”

9

These findings mirror several of the observations we made in GAO/NSIAD-00-222. 
Page 15 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

its strategic plan needs to be significantly improved, and major changes are 

planned for the next iteration.10

Plan Lacks Focus on 

Audience Size and Other 

Measurable Program 

Objectives 

The absence of “audience size” as a strategic goal and related measurable 

program objectives represents one of the most significant oversights in the 

Board’s strategic plan. The strategic plan references the importance of 

reaching a large audience in priority markets as the key driver behind the 

Board’s new approach to broadcasting and notes that audience size is the 

most readily available and accurate impact measure it has. Despite the 

central importance of audience size to the Board’s new approach to 

broadcasting, the plan is silent on how these data should be incorporated 

as a measurable program objective or series of program objectives to gauge 

the Board’s effectiveness in this key area. The Board has traditionally 

reported audience size in its annual performance plan; however, this 

reporting lacks any contextual meaning since it is not tied to a program 

objective(s) defining the Board’s multiyear vision for what it would like to 

accomplish in this area. In addition, the Board’s practice of reporting 

audience size goals and accomplishments at the entity level in its annual 

performance plan obscured important performance data at the regional 

and language service level.

We also found that the plan’s existing strategic goals are not supported by 

measurable program objectives. The strategic plan has 17 program 

objectives,11 any of which can be used to illustrate the lack of performance 

goals and expectations. For example, under the goal of employing modern 

communication techniques and technologies, one objective is to accelerate 

multimedia development and infuse more television and Internet into the 

mix. The Board’s plan only makes broad assertions about the need to “do 

more with TV where market realities demand and resources permit” and 

that the Board “will ensure that all entities have world-class Internet 

presences.” 

10We recently reported that a “program logic model” can help information dissemination 

agencies systematically identify their program activities, inputs, outputs, outcomes, and 

program impact. By specifying what is expected at each step, a logic model can help 

agencies define the most appropriate set of program goals and measures. As such, the model 

could be used by the Board as a tool to help prepare its next iteration of the strategic plan. 

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Strategies for Assessing How 

Information Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals, GAO-02-923 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 30, 2002).

11See appendix I for a list of the Board’s strategic goals and program objectives.
Page 16 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Under the goal of progressively building out the U.S. international 

broadcasting system, the Board lists the successful launch of Radio Sawa 

as a program objective. Again, the plan makes broad statements about the 

need to attract and build a significant audience in the Middle East and 

present news that is objective, comprehensive, fresh, and relevant. 

However, it does not provide details on expected performance levels. 

Specifically, the plan does not establish short- or long-range target audience 

figures for the Gaza strip, West Bank, and 17 countries in the Middle East 

and Africa to which Radio Sawa will eventually broadcast. 

A Range of Effectiveness 

Measures Could Be 

Incorporated in the Board’s 

Plan

Our survey of senior program managers across all broadcast entities and 

discussions with other program staff and outside parties, suggested a 

number of other effectiveness measures the Board could incorporate when 

developing measurable program objectives designed to support the plan’s 

strategic goals.12 These measures include audience awareness; broadcast 

entity credibility; and a measure of VOA’s ability to communicate a 

balanced and comprehensive projection of American thought, institutions, 

and policies so that audiences receive, understand, and retain this 

information.

Audience Awareness The strategic plan does not include a measure of audience awareness to 

answer a second key question of effectiveness: whether target audiences 

are even aware of U.S. international broadcasting programming available in 

their area. Board officials have stated that such measures would help the 

Board understand a key factor in audience share rates and what could be 

done to address audience share deficiencies. The Board could develop this 

measure since it already collects information on language service 

awareness levels in its audience research and in national surveys for 

internal use.

Broadcaster Credibility The strategic plan does not include a measure of broadcaster credibility, 

which can identify whether target audiences believe what they hear. 

Reaching a large listening or viewing audience is of little use if audiences 

largely discount the news and information portions of broadcasts. Our 

12These measures represent a starting point, since each strategic goal in the plan needs to be 

supported by measurable program objectives. Once strategic goals are lined up with 

measurable program objectives, a related set of performance goals and indicators should be 

included in the Board’s performance plan to track annual progress toward implementing the 

plan’s program objectives.
Page 17 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

survey of senior program managers and discussions with BBG staff and 

outside groups all point to the possibility that U.S. broadcasters (VOA in 

particular) suffer from a credibility problem with foreign audiences, who 

may view VOA and other broadcasters as biased sources of information. 

InterMedia, the Board’s audience research contractor, told the Board that it 

is working on a credibility index for another customer that could be 

adapted to meet the Board’s needs which, when segmented by language 

service, would reveal whether there are significant perception problems 

among key target audiences. However, to develop this measure, the Board 

would need to add several questions to its national survey instruments.

Measure of VOA Mission 

Effectiveness

Finally, the strategic plan does not include a measure of whether target 

audiences hear, understand, and retain information broadcast by VOA on 

American thought, institutions, and policies. The unique value-added 

component of VOA’s broadcasting mission is its focus on issues and 

information concerning the United States, our system of government, and 

the rationale behind U.S. policy decisions. Tracking and reporting these 

data are important to determining whether VOA is accomplishing its 

mission. InterMedia officials noted that developing a measure of this sort is 

feasible and requires developing appropriate quantitative and qualitative 

questions to include in the Board’s ongoing research activities.

Plan Lacks Specifics on 

Implementation Strategies, 

Resource Needs, and 

Project Time Frames

We found that each of the plan’s program objectives lacked a detailed 

description of implementation strategies, resource needs, and project time 

frames. Typically, each program objective consists of an overview of the 

problem followed by a general assertion that operations must be improved. 

For example, the “action plan” for the accelerated use of television and the 

Internet is limited to the following statements: 

• “Appropriate Television – VOA has seen significant audience impact in 

several key markets through television broadcasts—the Balkans, Iran, 

and Indonesia. We can and will do more with TV where market realities 

demand this and where resources permit. The first step is to cement the 

establishment of VOA-TV from the former Worldnet. 

• Higher Quality Web Presence – We have seen spotty progress towards 

the goal of having all language services create high quality newsoriented websites. Some are outstanding. The content of others is thin 

and visually uninteresting. Bottom line: We will ensure that all entities 

have world-class Internet presences.”
Page 18 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

This level of planning begs key questions such as:

• What is the overall strategy for implementing the enhanced use of 

television and the Internet? Who will be responsible for implementing 

the component parts of the strategy? How much will it cost? How long 

will it take to implement?

• How will the Board manage workforce planning issues such as 

transitioning staff from radio-based skills to the skill set required to 

significantly augment the Board’s multimedia operations?

• How will the long-planned merger of VOA Television and WorldNet 

impact the Board’s strategic approach to television?

• How will the Middle East Television Network factor into the Board’s 

plans and what are the resource, staffing, and training implications of 

this proposed network? 

Answers to such questions will provide the Board, BBG managers, OMB, 

and the Congress with specific information needed to manage ongoing 

program implementation and assess progress against meaningful short- and 

long-term criteria. This level of planning also will reveal any potential gaps 

or inconsistencies in planned implementation steps across the Board’s 

many program objectives.

Board Plans to Address 

Many Challenges, but 

Scope of Operations 

May Limit Its Impact 

The key strategic challenge the Board faces is how to achieve large 

audiences in priority markets while dealing with (1) a collection of 

outdated and noncompetitive language services, (2) a disparate 

organizational structure consisting of seven separate broadcast entities and 

a mix of federal agency and grantee organizations that are managed by a 

part-time Board of Governors, and (3) the resource challenge of 

broadcasting in 97 language services to more than 125 broadcast markets 

worldwide. The plan does address the challenge of revamping its current 

broadcast operations by identifying a number of solutions to the 

competitive challenges the Board faces. It also provides a new 

organizational model for U.S. international broadcasting that stresses the 

need to view the broadcast efforts of the separate entities as part of a 

“single system” under the Board’s direct control and authority. The Board 

has stated that it cannot sustain all its current broadcast operations and 

have the desired impact in high priority markets at the same time. Despite a 

clear articulation of U.S. international broadcasting’s resource challenges, 
Page 19 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

the Board and Congress have not been able to substantially reduce the total 

number of language services or a reported 55 percent overlap in VOA and 

surrogate language services.

Board Has Identified 

Solutions to Market 

Challenges 

The Board’s strategic plan does an adequate job of identifying the market 

challenges for U.S. international broadcasters and potential solutions to 

these challenges. The task of reaching a significant audience today is a far 

different proposition than reaching an audience a decade ago. Priority 

markets have multiplied and media environments have advanced virtually 

everywhere with an explosion of local radio and television outlets that 

compete aggressively for audience share. Broadcast and computer 

technologies have made quantum leaps, with satellite television and the 

Internet becoming preferred information modes for millions. The Board 

has concluded that because many people can now pick and choose their 

information sources, U.S. international broadcast operations must be 

improved to remain competitive in a new media environment. 

The Board’s strategic plan includes a frank assessment of the market 

challenges that must be addressed to make U.S. international broadcasting 

more competitive. These challenges include:

• Branding and positioning. Language services lack a distinctive 

contemporary identity and a unique reason for listeners or viewers to 

tune in.

• Target audiences. Few language services have identified their target 

audience—a key first step in developing a broadcast strategy.

• Formats and programs. Many language services have outmoded 

formats and programs with an antiquated, even Cold War, sound and 

style.

• Delivery and placement. Three-quarters of transmitted hours have poor 

or fair signal quality, and affiliate broadcaster strategies have stressed 

quantity over quality.

• Marketing and promotion. Audience awareness levels are low across 

the world and audiences often do not know where to tune in or what to 

expect once they do.
Page 20 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

• Technology. The Board is not maximizing the use of multimedia to reach 

audiences, stimulate real-time interaction, and cross-promote broadcast 

products.

These challenges are addressed by a number of proposed solutions in the 

form of strategic goals and program objectives listed in the plan. With 

regards to the marketing challenges, 12 of the 17 program objectives are 

designed to directly or indirectly overcome these challenges. For example, 

the Board’s strategic goal of employing modern communication techniques 

and technologies is supported by the following program objectives:

• accelerate multimedia development and infuse more television and 

Internet into the mix;

• adopt modern radio principles and practices including the matching of 

program formats to target audiences;

• control the distribution channels that audiences use;

• go local in content and presence;

• tailor content to audiences; and

• drive innovation and performance with research.

Full implementation of these and other solutions to market challenges in 

high priority markets will depend on available resources, which in turn will 

be driven in part by the Board’s effectiveness in addressing its 

organizational and resource challenges. 

Plan Proposes a “Single 

System” for Broadcasting 

and Increased Leadership 

for the Board

The plan identifies a number of internal challenges or obstacles which, if 

not addressed and corrected, will hamper the Board’s ability to effectively 

implement its new strategic approach to broadcasting. First, the Board 

believes that it needs to do more to consolidate and rationalize its 

organizational structure to better leverage existing resources and generate 

greater program impact in priority markets. As the strategic plan notes, 

“the diversity of the BBG—diverse organizations with different missions, 

different frameworks, and different constituencies—makes it a challenge 

to bring all the separate parts together in a more effective whole.” Second, 

the Board believes that it must clarify the respective roles and 

responsibilities of the Board, the IBB, and the broadcast entities to ensure 
Page 21 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

that a rational management process is in place and that internal 

communications flow in a logical manner.13

The Board’s response to these internal challenges is largely contained in 

the two program objectives listed under the strategic goal of designing a 

broadcast architecture for the 21st century. The first program objective is 

to create a unified broadcasting system by treating the component parts of 

U.S. international broadcasting as a single system. This is an important 

distinction since it places the Board in the position of actively managing 

resources across broadcast entities to achieve common broadcast goals. A 

good example of this strategy in action is Radio Farda, which draws on the 

unique content of VOA’s Persian service and Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty’s Persian service to create a new broadcast product for the Iranian 

market. Board officials acknowledge that the new single system approach 

will take years to implement throughout the BBG and require hands-on 

management by the entire Board to ensure that resources are adequately 

managed across entities. Also, the Board’s experience with implementing 

Radio Sawa suggests that it can be difficult to make disparate broadcast 

entities work toward a common purpose. For example, Board members 

and senior planners said they encountered significant difficulties 

attempting to work with VOA officials to launch Radio Sawa and there are 

now plans to constitute Radio Sawa as a separate grantee organization. 

While this move is understandable under the circumstances, it also 

contributes to the further “balkanization” of U.S. international 

broadcasting.

The second program objective consists of realigning the BBG’s 

organizational structure. This objective highlights the need to reinforce the 

Board’s role as CEO and to reaffirm the IBB’s role as central provider of 

transmission and local placement services. The plan notes that by law the 

Board is the head of the agency with a host of nondelegable responsibilities 

including taking the lead role in shaping the BBG’s overall strategic 

direction, setting expectations and standards, and creating the context for 

13The Board’s concerns over organizational and management issues mirror the results of a 

retreat of senior BBG managers held in July 2001, which served as a springboard for the 

development of the Board’s strategic plan. The retreat represented a “no holds barred” look 

at current activities and future operations. One retreat exercise focused on identifying the 

key “restrainers” blocking the Board from moving toward a future vision for U.S. 

international broadcasting as articulated by the group. A tabulation of votes revealed that 

senior managers believed that a “flawed BBG organizational structure” and “very poor 

internal communications” were the two top restrainers the Board faces.
Page 22 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

innovation and change. As it consolidates its role as the collective CEO for 

U.S. international broadcasting, the Board will seek to create better and 

stronger linkages among entities, uniting them in a common purpose and 

program. At the same time, the Board plans to assume the role of helping 

the broadcasting organizations develop radio formats to package and 

better present the broadcasters’ content. According to the plan, this 

becomes a major responsibility, as professional formatting is vital to the 

BBG’s competitiveness and effectiveness. 

Plan Does Not Discuss 

Several Organizational 

Options

We found significant support among BBG staff and outside experts we 

interviewed and surveyed for a select number of solutions not included in 

the Board’s plan. However, these are complex issues that deserve detailed 

review and careful weighing of the pros and cons. Implementing these 

solutions is largely beyond the Board’s control. However, the Board can 

play a key role in identifying and endorsing creative solutions for Congress 

to consider if the Board’s planned solutions to organizational and 

leadership challenges falter and are ineffective. A list of these options is 

offered for informational purposes and as a reference point for the Board, 

OMB, and Congress in pursuing solutions to acknowledged operating 

challenges. (See app. II for relevant survey responses we received from 

senior program managers.) Table 3 summarizes the Board’s planned action 

compared with these potential alternatives.
Page 23 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Table 3: Planned Actions and Additional Options

Source: GAO analysis.

a

Certain Board members and senior BBG planners view this option as problematic given the 

perception that attracting talented individuals to serve on the Board is dependent, in part, on the Board 

having a central and unambiguous role in managing the operations of U.S. international broadcasting.

b

The utility of appointing federal agency COOs was recently explored at a roundtable of senior private 

and public sector executives sponsored by GAO. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Highlights of a 

GAO Roundtable: The Chief Operating Officer Concept: A Potential Strategy to Address Federal 

Governance Challenges, GAO-03-192SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2002).

Plan Does Not Directly 

Address the Board’s Scope 

of Operations

The Board has concluded that if U.S. international broadcasting is to 

become a vital component of U.S. foreign policy, it must focus on a clear 

set of broadcast priorities. Trying to do too much at the same time fractures 

this focus, extends the span of control beyond management capabilities, 

and siphons off precious resources. The Board has determined that current 

efforts to support its broadcast languages are “unsustainable” with current 

resources given its desire to increase impact in high priority markets. 

Currently, the Board broadcasts in 66 languages, through 97 language 

Planned action Potential alternatives 

“Single system” approach to broadcasting Consider whether U.S. international broadcasting should be consolidated into a single 

entity to streamline and rationalize operations.

(See survey question 20.1.)

Reinforce the Board’s role as CEO Consider whether a full-time CEO or Chief Operating Officer (COO) for international 

broadcasting is needed to manage day-to-day operations that may put too great a 

stress on a part-time Board. In either case, it is presumed that the Board would have 

direct hire and fire authority over such a position.a,b

 (See survey question 20.2.)

Reinforce the IBB’s central support role Consider an alternative to the current support services arrangement giving VOA, 

Radio/TV Marti, and WorldNet the same flexibility as grantees to manage their 

nontransmission support services. Grantee organizations (Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty and Radio Free Asia) directly control most nontransmission support services 

such as affiliate relations, marketing, and computer services. In contrast, 

nontransmission support services for VOA, Radio/TV Marti, and WorldNet were 

largely consolidated within the IBB as part of the 1994 International Broadcasting Act. 

(See survey question 4.3.)

No parallel action Consider whether VOA, the IBB, and Radio/TV Marti should be reconstituted as 

grantees to place them on the same footing as the surrogate broadcasters, who enjoy 

more liberal workforce rules and fewer restrictions. It has been argued that the flexible 

environment grantees have is more conducive to a fast-paced business such as 

broadcasting.

(See survey questions 20.8 and 20.9.)
Page 24 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

services (resulting from a 55 percent overlap between VOA and surrogate 

language services) to more than 125 markets worldwide. The plan notes, “it 

is a daunting challenge to obtain the impact the Board desires across all its 

language services given what is essential to spend in high priority services.”

Despite this recognition, the plan fails to answer such questions as, when is 

it appropriate to broadcast VOA and surrogate programming in the same 

language, and what level of duplication in roles and target audiences 

should be allowed between VOA and surrogate broadcasters. These types 

of questions have been raised before. For example, in our September 1996 

review of options for addressing possible budget reductions at the U.S. 

Information Agency, we concluded that any substantial reduction in 

funding for U.S. international broadcasting would require major changes in 

the number of language services and broadcast hours.14 Our report noted 

that the BBG planned to extensively review its language services to 

determine their continued need and effectiveness. Our September 2000 

report on U.S. international broadcasting noted that the Board concluded it 

was essential to revisit the issue of broadcast overlap between VOA and the 

surrogate services in light of evolving foreign policy, geopolitical, and 

budget realities in the new century.15 Finally, the Board considered the 

issue of role and target audience duplication among VOA and surrogate 

broadcasts in a July 2000 language service analysis, which sought to 

identify where broadcast services shared similar roles (that is, to supply 

international/regional news, local news, information on American policies 

and perspectives, etc.) and the same target audiences (that is, elites, mass, 

youth, women, and diaspora). This analysis confirmed that surrogate 

broadcasters, consistent with their mission, carry substantially more local 

content than VOA. Likewise, the analysis confirmed that VOA alone 

provides news and information on what the Board labeled the “American 

political perspective.” However, the Board’s analysis also revealed that a 

significant degree of overlap existed in other content areas (such as 

“political/democracy building”) and in target audiences between VOA and 

the surrogates.

14See U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Information Agency: Options for Addressing 

Possible Budget Reductions, GAO/NSIAD-96-179 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 1996).

15See GAO/NSIAD-00-222.
Page 25 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Reducing the Number of 

Language Services and 

Broadcast Overlap Has 

Broad Support

Our survey of senior program managers revealed that the majority 

supported significantly reducing the total number of language services and 

the overlap in services between VOA and the surrogate broadcasters.16

Eighteen of 24 respondents said that too many language services are 

offered, and when asked how many countries should have more than one 

U.S. international broadcaster providing service in the same language, 23 of 

28 respondents said this should occur in only a few countries or no 

countries at all. Finally, when we asked respondents what impact a 

significant reduction in language services (for the purpose of 

reprogramming funds to higher priority services) would have, 18 of 28 

respondents said that this would have a generally positive to highly positive 

impact.

The BBG’s annual language service review process addresses the need to 

delete or add languages. The process prioritizes individual language 

services based on such factors as U.S. strategic interests, political freedom, 

and press freedom data. Such assessments have been used in an attempt to 

shift the focus of U.S. international broadcasting away from central and 

eastern Europe to allow greater emphasis on Russia and Eurasia; central 

and South Asia; China and east Asia; Africa; and selected countries in our 

hemisphere such as Colombia, Cuba, and Haiti. This system has been used 

to re-deploy resources within the BBG. For example, the Board has 

reallocated more than $9 million through the elimination or reduction of 

language services since its first language service review in January 2000. In 

total, the Board has eliminated 3 language services17 and reduced the

16We did not ask program managers for their views on the duplication of roles and target 

audiences among broadcast entities since this issue surfaced after our survey was released.

17VOA Portuguese to Brazil was eliminated as a direct result of language service review. VOA 

Arabic and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Persian service were eventually eliminated as 

the result of decisions made during language service review and were replaced by Radio 

Sawa and Radio Farda, respectively.
Page 26 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

scope-of-operations of another 25 services since January 2000.18 In terms of 

the total number of language services, the Board had 91 language services 

when it concluded its first language service review and 97 language 

services at the conclusion of this year’s review. Congress has contributed 

to this situation by authorizing additional language services over the years. 

However, the Board, through its required annual language service review 

and strategic plan, is responsible for analyzing, recommending, and 

implementing a more efficient and economical scope of operations for U.S. 

international broadcasting.

Conclusions The Broadcasting Board of Governors’ strategic plan embodies, defines, 

and guides the Board’s new approach to U.S. international broadcasting, 

which aims to dramatically increase the size of listening and viewing 

audiences in markets of U.S. strategic interest while focusing on the war on 

terrorism. Early initiatives such as Radio Sawa, Radio Free Afghanistan, 

and Radio Farda represent the first wave of projects incorporating, to 

varying degrees, the market-driven techniques on which the Board’s new 

approach to broadcasting are based. Effective implementation of the 

Board’s new approach to broadcasting rests, in part, on a rigorous plan that 

reflects the Board’s best strategic thinking on a host of critical issues. 

However, the Board’s plan lacks measurable program objectives, detailed 

implementation strategies, resource needs, and project time frames. We 

identified a number of key areas that could provide a starting point for 

developing multiyear program objectives that focus on the Board’s actual 

effectiveness. These measures include audience size by language service, 

audience awareness, broadcaster credibility, and whether VOA effectively 

presents information about U.S. thought, institutions, and policies to target 

audiences. Implementation of these and other program objectives could be 

tracked through a related set of performance goals and indicators in the 

Board’s annual performance plan. The Board has identified a number of 

18Cutting language services can be challenging due to congressional concerns that the 

proposed elimination or reduction of language services is not supported by a clear rationale. 

For example, at OMB’s direction, the Board’s fiscal year 2004 budget request was reduced by 

$8.8 million to reflect the proposed elimination of broadcasts in nine foreign languages 

assessed as low priority/low impact services in connection with the Board’s 2001/2002 

language service review. However, Senator Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee, has expressed the view that the U.S. should not withdraw broadcasting services 

in certain countries until there is assurance of a free and fair press in those countries. In this 

regard, that Committee has approved S.925 which contains a provision that would prohibit 

the BBG from eliminating the foreign language broadcasts proposed for elimination in the 

BBG’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. 
Page 27 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

market and internal challenges and proposed solutions to address them. If 

the Board falters in its efforts to correct some significant organizational 

challenges, a number of alternative solutions do exist. Finally, the Board 

needs to evaluate how many language services it can effectively carry and 

what level of overlap and duplication in VOA and surrogate broadcast 

services is appropriate. Resolving these key questions will have significant 

resource implications for the Board and its ability to reach large audiences 

in markets of priority interest to the United States.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve overall management of U.S. international broadcast operations 

and maximize their impact on U.S. public diplomacy efforts, we 

recommend that the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors:

• revise the BBG’s 5-year strategic plan to include measurable program 

objectives, implementation strategies, resource requirements, and 

project time frames;

• include audience size, audience awareness, broadcaster credibility, and 

VOA mission effectiveness as measurable program objectives in the 

strategic plan; 

• revise the BBG’s annual performance plan to include performance goals 

and indicators that track the Board’s progress in implementing the 

multiyear program objectives established in the Board’s revised 

strategic plan; and

• revise the Board’s strategic plan to include a clear vision of the Board’s 

intended scope-of-operations and the appropriate level of overlap and 

duplication between VOA and surrogate language services.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

The Broadcasting Board of Governors provided written comments on a 

draft of this report. The Board stated that overall our report is fair and 

accurate and it largely concurred with our report recommendations. The 

Board noted that it intends to create a new strategic goal (that is, 

maximizing impact in priority areas) and recast the plan’s seven existing 

strategic goals as operational goals that would support the Board’s single 

strategic goal. These operational goals would be descriptive in nature and 

generally not measured directly. However, the Board intends to develop 

measurable multiyear program objectives and related performance 
Page 28 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

indicators under its new strategic goal that will be tracked on an annual 

basis through the BBG’s performance plan. The Board’s response notes that 

possible performance indicators include audience reach, share, awareness, 

credibility, programming quality, mission, added-value, and delivery. 

Finally, the Board noted that it is currently undertaking an in-depth 

assessment of the utility and practicality of integrating overlapping 

language services and expects to include this assessment in its fiscal year 

2005 budget submission. We believe these planned actions are significant 

and if fully implemented should materially improve the Board's 

performance management process and provide OMB and Congress with 

more meaningful data on the actual impact of Board activities.

The comments provided by the Board are reprinted in appendix IV. The 

Board also provided technical comments which we have incorporated in 

the report as appropriate.

Scope and 

Methodology

To obtain comparative information on all our objectives, we conducted 

fieldwork in the United Kingdom and Germany. We met with foreign 

ministry officials in London and Berlin to discuss their approaches to 

public diplomacy. We also met with broadcasting officials from the British 

Broadcasting Corporation in London and Deutsche Welle officials in 

Cologne and Berlin to discuss their respective approaches to international 

broadcasting.

To examine the status of the BBG’s new strategic approach, we conducted 

interviews with Board members and senior managers from the broadcast 

entities including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty officials in Prague. We 

also reviewed the Board’s new 5-year strategic plan titled “Marrying the 

Mission to the Market” as well as other agency documentation, including 

entity mission statements and budget requests.

To identify how the Board plans to measure the effectiveness of its new 

strategic approach, we reviewed current performance management 

documentation, such as language service and program review documents, 

audience research summaries, and annual performance plans and reports. 

We also met with Board officials and with several private sector audience 

research firms to discuss a range of performance management and 

measurement issues.

To obtain information on various challenges the Board faces in executing 

its new strategy, and to identify program options for overcoming key 
Page 29 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

challenges, we administered a survey to 34 senior program managers 

across the 5 broadcast entities in existence at the time our survey was 

implemented. We also conducted interviews with Board members and the 

Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the Department 

of State.

We conducted our work from May 2002 through April 2003 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested members of 

Congress, the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the 

Secretary of State. We will also make copies available to other parties upon 

request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

on (202) 512-4128. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are 

listed in appendix V.

Jess T. Ford

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 30 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix I

Challenges Facing U.S. International Apendxies

Broadcasting ApendxiI

The Board’s strategic plan provides both a candid assessment of the 

challenges facing U.S. international broadcasting and a series of proposed 

solutions to address these challenges in the form of strategic goals and 

related program objectives. Table 4 is an overview of each challenge 

described in the Board’s strategic plan. Table 5 is a list of the proposed 

solutions the Board identified.

Table 4: Board-Identified Challenges

Source: BBG strategic plan.

Challenge Description from strategic plan

Marketing 

Branding and positioning Many BBG broadcasters lack a distinctive contemporary identity.

Target audiences Identifying a target audience is essential to a broadcasting strategy—yet only a few BBG 

language services have set targets.

Formats and programs The formats and programs of too many BBG language services are outmoded.

Delivery and placement Broadcasts are frequently hampered by poor audibility. Placement, where available, is 

sometimes hindered by poor partner station choices with poor broadcast times.

Marketing and promotion Audience awareness of BBG programs is generally low across the world.

Technology The BBG must use multimedia to its advantage. While radio is the backbone, TV is usually 

dominant and there has been substantial growth in Internet use in many markets.

Internal 

Consolidate and rationalize the overall 

enterprise

The diversity of the BBG—organizations with different missions, different frameworks, and 

different constituencies—makes it hard to bring all the separate parts together into a more 

effective whole. Fifty-five percent of VOA’s language services overlap with the surrogates, 

presenting a chronic resource allocation challenge for the Board.

Roles and responsibilities Since its inception, the Board has worked to sort out the respective roles and responsibilities of 

the BBG, the IBB, and the broadcasters.

Resource allocation Appropriate performance measures are needed to establish a direct link between performance 

and budget. Language service review has made great strides in this area for the broadcast 

language services; however, the Board now needs to broaden this exercise to encompass 

support elements as well.

New requirements to ensure market 

competitiveness

The Board will need substantial new budget outlays to fund a variety of requirements including 

the strengthening of multimedia programming, conducting research, carrying out marketing and 

promotion efforts, and securing language-qualified staff.

Journalistically independent, yet a 

government agency

The BBG must work with other federal agencies to ensure the level of diplomatic and other types 

of support needed to function effectively.
Appendix I

Challenges Facing U.S. International 

Broadcasting

Page 31 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Table 5: Proposed SolutionsStrategic Goals and Objectives

Source: BBG strategic plan.

a

The term "firewall" refers to the Board's independent status in separating and protecting the 

professional independence and integrity of U.S. international broadcast elements from the policymaking institutions in the U.S. government's foreign affairs community.

Goal I – Design a broadcasting architecture for the future.

• Create a worldwide U.S. international broadcasting system.

• Realign the BBG organizational structure.

Goal II – Expand the U.S. international broadcasting system through regional networks and single-country priority initiatives.

• Launch the Middle East Radio Network and make it a success.

• Harmonize Radio Free Afghanistan and VOA into the Afghanistan Radio Network.

• Pioneer anti-terrorism broadcasting.

• Reach the two continental giants: Russia and China.

Goal III – Employ modern communication techniques and technologies.

• Accelerate multimedia development and infuse more television and Internet into the mix.

• Adopt modern radio principles and practices such as matching program formats to target audiences.

• Control the distribution channels that audiences use.

• Go local in content and presence.

• Tailor content to the audience.

• Drive innovation and performance with research.

Goal IV – Preserve our most precious commodity—credibility—and ensure overall programming excellence.

• Maintain the firewall.a

• Update and enforce journalism standards.

• Perform periodic program reviews of all language services.

Goal V – Revitalize “Telling America’s Story” to the world.

• Be a model of a free press and democracy in action.

• Concentrate on those aspects of America that research indicates are of interest to target audiences.

• Present targeted editorials that are relevant to local and regional concerns.

• Use formats, presentation techniques, and on-air presence that will appeal to audiences.

• Maximize interactive use of the Internet as a ready reference source for presidential speeches and other vital documents.

Goal VI – Shore up surge capacity.

• Upgrade existing shortwave transmitter and support systems to ensure backbone of U.S. surge capability.

• Develop a rapid-response capability—low power, portable AM and FM.

Goal VII – Ensure broad federal support.

• No associated program objective.
Page 32 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix II

Survey Development ApendxiI

To determine senior managers’ views of current operations, obtain 

information on the challenges associated with U.S. international 

broadcasting, and obtain information on the expected impacts of the BBG’s 

new “Marrying the Mission to the Market” initiative, we conducted a survey 

of these managers. Our survey questionnaire was administered from 

January 15 to March 11, 2003, to the directors, program-related managers, 

and regional language chiefs at the five BBG broadcasting entities in 

existence at the time our survey was implemented. 

The questionnaire was developed between September 2002 and January 

2003 by social science survey specialists and other individuals who were 

knowledgeable about international broadcasting issues. In late October, we 

obtained an external expert review of the questionnaire from InterMedia, a 

private consulting group that conducts research into international 

broadcasting issues. We also obtained a series of comments and feedback 

from key Board planners and staff in November and December 2002. 

We pretested the questionnaire in December 2002 with four senior 

managers of BBG broadcasting entities to ensure that the questionnaire 

was clear, unambiguous, and unbiased. Initially, we had considered 

surveying a broader section of managers of BBG broadcasting entities, 

such as language service chiefs and managers of support services. 

However, after conducting the pretests, we concluded that our questions 

were appropriate only for directors, program-related managers, and 

regional language chiefs. In addition, we decided that it would be 

inappropriate to survey members of the Board of Governors because many 

of the questions asked about decisions and strategies for which they were 

directly responsible. 

We developed our study population of top managers, program-related 

managers, and regional language chiefs based on information that the BBG 

provided and input from BBG management. In those instances where 

managers had taken office during or after the time period to be evaluated in 

our survey (Oct. 1, 2001, through Sept. 30, 2002), we also surveyed their 

predecessors. In all, we sent the survey to the 34 individuals we identified 

as our study population and received 30 responses, resulting in an 88 

percent response rate. All data from the completed surveys were doublekeyed and verified during data entry.

The results of our closed-ended questions to our survey are provided in 

appendix III. 
Page 33 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities ApendxiI

1

United States General Accounting Office 

Survey of Program Managers of

U.S. International Broadcasting Entities

The United States General Accounting Office 

(GAO), an agency of Congress, has been asked 

by the Chairman of the House International 

Relations Committee to study the activities of 

the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). 

This request was prompted by the terrorist 

attacks of September 11, 2001 and the question 

of what can be done to improve our image and 

audience understanding of U.S. foreign policy. 

As part of this work, we are surveying entity 

heads, senior program managers, and regional 

language chiefs in the International Broadcasting 

Bureau, Voice of America (VOA), Worldnet 

Television, Radio/TV Marti, Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and Radio 

Free Asia (RFA). 

This questionnaire asks you to assess various 

program elements during fiscal year 2002 for the 

language services for which you were 

responsible. It also asks you to consider 

whether any external factors impeded the ability 

of your language services to achieve their 

mission, and rank any factors that contributed to 

or impeded that mission. Furthermore, the 

questionnaire asks for your reaction to the 

BBG’s new strategic planning initiative 

“Marrying the Mission to the Market” that was 

introduced in November and December 2002. 

Finally, the questionnaire asks about current 

operations, recent changes in programming, and 

program options. 

We believe that you can make an important 

contribution to our study of U.S. international 

broadcasting, and ask that you respond to this 

questionnaire so that we may provide the most 

complete information to Congress. The 

questionnaire should take between 30 to 45 

minutes to complete, depending upon the length 

of your answers to the open-ended questions. 

The information you provide may be attributed 

to the types of officials we are surveying in your 

organization. GAO will not otherwise disclose 

individually identifiable data from this survey 

unless compelled by law or requested by a 

member of Congress. 

Please complete this questionnaire as soon as 

possible and fax it to Melissa Pickworth at (202) 

512-2550 or e-mail it to her at 

pickworthm@gao.gov. If you have any 

questions about the questionnaire, please contact 

Melissa Pickworth at (202) 512-3158. 
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 34 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

2

Section 1: Assessment of Program Elements in Fiscal Year 2002 

(October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002) 

Q.1) During fiscal year 2002, how effective or ineffective were the following factors, which we are 

calling distribution factors, in terms of how they helped your language services achieve their 

mission? (Please check one box in each row.) 

Very 

effective 

Generally 

effective 

As

effective as 

ineffective

Generally 

ineffective

Very 

ineffective

Not

applicable

No basis to 

judge / 

Don’t know 

Distribution Factors 

1) Number of hours of 

transmission. 

6 14 5 4 1 

2) Transmission strength 

and quality. 

 13 6 6 2 3 

3) Use of affiliates. 2 7 5 4 2 8 2 

4) Monitoring of affiliate 

rebroadcasting. 

 3 2 7 7 8 2 

5) Coordination with IBB 

Affiliates and Marketing 

office.

4 8 2 4 5 7 

6) Use of shortwave radio. 9 8 6 6 1 

7) Use of AM/FM radio. 5 10 3 1 1 10 

8) Use of television. 2 9 6 1 8 3 

9) Use of the Internet. 5 14 6 2 1 1 

10) Use of e-mail. 3 16 3 2 1 2 1 

11) Use of new/emerging 

technology (e.g., digital 

SW or Web-enabled cell 

phones).

2 4 3 1 3 14 2 

12) Use of audience and 

market research to help 

identify audiences and 

media/format preferences. 

4 11 6 5 3 

Comments, if any. (Please provide highlights of what worked well, areas needing improvement, and 

suggestions on how operations can be improved.)

Mission of All U.S. International Broadcasting Language Services 

“To promote and sustain freedom and democracy by broadcasting accurate and 

objective news and information about the United States and the world to audiences 

overseas.”
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 35 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

3

Q.2) During fiscal year 2002, what impact did the following strategic planning elements have on your 

language services’ ability to achieve their mission? (Please check one box in each row.) 

Highly 

positive

impact 

Generally 

positive

impact 

No impact Generally 

negative

impact 

Highly 

negative

impact 

Not

applicable

No basis to 

judge / 

Don’t know 

Strategic Planning 

1) BBG strategic 

planning. 

3 5 9 5 1 7 

2) BBG/IBB technology 

planning. 

11 10 2 1 6 

3) BBG/IBB workforce 

planning. 

 14 4 3 1 8 

Comments, if any. (Please provide highlights of what worked well, areas needing improvement, and 

suggestions on how operations can be improved.)

Q.3) During fiscal year 2002, how effective or ineffective were the following performance management 

system elements in terms of how they helped your language services to achieve their mission? 

(Please check one box in each row.) 

Very 

effective 

Generally 

effective 

As

effective as 

ineffective

Generally 

ineffective

Very 

ineffective

Not

applicable

No basis to 

judge / 

Don’t know 

Performance Management System 

1) BBG’s Annual 

Comparative Language 

Service Review process. 

7 6 4 6 4 3 

2) Your entity’s annual 

program reviews of 

individual language 

service. 

6 10 3 4 6 1 

3) Quantity of research for 

your entity’s annual 

program reviews. 

3 10 8 3 1 4 1 

4) Quality of research for 

your entity’s annual 

program reviews. 

3 9 6 6 1 4 1 

5) Timeliness of research 

support for your entity’s 

annual program reviews . 

3 8 7 3 3 4 2 

Comments, if any. (Please provide highlights of what worked well, areas needing improvement, and 

suggestions on how operations can be improved.)
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 36 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

4

Q.4) During fiscal year 2002, did the following organizational structures have a positive or negative 

impact on your language services’ ability to achieve their mission? (Please check one box in each 

row.)

Highly 

positive

impact 

Generally 

positive

impact 

No impact Generally 

negative

impact 

Highly 

negative

impact 

Not

applicable

No basis to 

judge / 

Don’t know 

Organizational Structures 

1) Management oversight by 

the board of governors. 

2 8 8 7 3 2 

2) Use of multiple broadcast 

entities (VOA and surrogates 

model).

3 5 2 4 3 11 2 

3) Organizational placement 

of the IBB and its support 

services role. 

1 7 4 9 5 1 3 

4) New regional network 

approach (combining VOA 

and surrogate program 

streams on one frequency). 

2 3 6 3 2 9 5 

5) Intra-agency 

coordination/guidance/leader

-ship (the board, entity 

directors and senior 

managers, and the IBB). 

1 11 9 4 3 2 

6) Firewall to protect 

journalistic independence. 

7 8 6 7 2 

7) VOA and Radio/TV 

Marti’s status as federal 

entities. 

2 4 4 6 3 7 4 

8) RFE/RL and RFA’s status 

as grantees. 

7 2 4 3 10 4 

Comments, if any. (Please provide highlights of what worked well, areas needing improvement, and 

suggestions on how operations can be improved.)
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 37 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

5

Q.5) During fiscal year 2002, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the allocation of resources and 

organizational capacities with regards to your language services? 

(Please check one box in each row.)

Comments, if any. (Please provide highlights of what worked well, areas needing improvement, and 

suggestions on how operations can be improved.)

Very 

satisfied

Generally 

satisfied

As satisfied as 

dissatisfied

Generally 

dissatisfied

Very 

dissatisfied

No basis to 

judge / 

Don’t know 

Allocation of Resources and Organizational Capacities 

1) Program funding 

levels.

2 4 8 12 4 

2) Staffing levels. 7 8 8 7 

3) Level of staff skills 

and knowledge. 

1 11 12 4 

4) Level of staff 

training.

1 13 10 4 2 

5) Condition of 

technology and 

equipment.

4 8 9 4 5 

6) Ability to compete in 

terms of content with 

broadcasting competitors 

such as the BBC. 

9 6 3 3 9 

7) Ability to compete in 

terms of signal delivery 

with broadcasting 

competitors such as the 

BBC.

2 3 2 8 13 2 

8) Ability for crisis 

response and surge 

capability. 

3 10 4 8 3 2 

9) Managerial flexibility: 

ability to re-deploy 

resources.

4 8 5 4 8 1 
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 38 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

6

Section 2: Assessment of External Conditions in Fiscal Year 2002

Q.6) To what extent, if any, do you believe the following external conditions (1) were present in the 

countries to which your language services broadcast, and (2) - if present - impeded the ability of 

your language services to achieve their mission in fiscal year 2002? 

(Please check two boxes in each row unless your answer to question 6A below is “No extent.” If 

your answer to any of the items in 6A is “No extent,” please continue to the next row.) 

6A) Extent to which external conditions were 

present in countries to which your language 

services broadcasts 

6B) Extent to which external conditions 

impeded the ability of your language services 

to achieve their mission 

No extent 

(Continue

to the next 

item)

Moderate

extent 

Great

extent 

No

basis to 

judge

No

extent 

Moderate

extent 

Great

extent 

No basis 

to judge 

1) A perception of U.S. international 

broadcasting as a propaganda tool of 

the United States. 

1 17 11 6 11 6 1 

2) Impact of U.S. foreign policy on 

foreign perceptions. 

 13 13 2 1 14 4 3 

3) A generally negative image of the 

United States. 

3 19 6 1 15 3 2 

4) Fear of listening because of 

repressive regimes. 

8 14 7 4 9 4 2 

5) The jamming of U.S. 

international broadcasts by foreign 

governments.

10 7 7 5 3 4 6 3 

6) Potential audience’s lack of 

technology (no SW radios, satellite 

dishes, etc.). 

7 15 6 1 2 15 4 1 

Comments, if any. 
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 39 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

7

Section 3: Assessment of External Conditions in Fiscal Year 2002

Q.7) Think back over the main categories of factors and elements you were asked to address in questions 

1 through 6 of this survey. The following table summarizes the categories and issues within the 

categories:

A) Distribution 

Number of hours of transmission, transmission strength and quality, use of 

affiliates, use of technology, use of audience and marketing research. 

B) Strategic Planning

BBG and IBB strategic, technology, and workforce planning. 

C) Performance Management 

Language Service Review process, entity annual program reviews, and research 

for annual program reviews. 

D) Organizational Structure 

Management oversight by the Board of Governors, use of multiple broadcast 

entities, organizational placement of the IBB, new regional network approach, 

intra-agency coordination/guidance/leadership, firewall issues, status of some 

entities.

E) Resource Issues and Organizational Capacities 

Current program funding and staff levels, staff skills, knowledge and training, 

technology and equipment, ability to compete and respond to crises, managerial 

flexibility. 

F) External Conditions

Perceived credibility of U.S. international broadcasting, image of the United 

States, lack of free media and civil liberties, jamming of U.S. broadcasts, potential 

audience’s lack of technology to hear broadcasts. 

7a) During fiscal year 2002, what factor made the greatest contribution to your broadcasting entity’s 

ability to meet its mission? 

(Please enter the letter corresponding to the factor from the list above.) A 13 

 E 6

 C 5 

 B 1 

Comments, if any. 

7b) During fiscal year 2002, what factor represented the greatest impediment to your broadcasting entity’s 

ability to meet its mission? 

(Please enter the letter corresponding to the factor from the list above.) E 13 

 D 5 

 A 4 

 F 4 

 B 2

Comments, if any. 
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 40 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

8

Section 4: New Strategic Planning Initiatives 

Q.8) How familiar or unfamiliar are you with the BBG’s new strategic planning initiative, “Marrying the 

Mission to the Market,” which was introduced in November and December 2002? (Check one box.) 

1  Extremely familiar 8

2  Very familiar 5

3  Generally familiar 12

4  Somewhat familiar 1

5  Not familiar Î (Skip to Question12) 1

6  No basis to judge Î (Skip to Question 12) 3

Q.9) To what extent, if any, do you believe the new strategic planning initiative, “Marrying the Mission to 

the Market”: (Please check one box in each row.) 

Very 

great 

extent 

Great

extent 

Moderate

extent 

Some or 

little 

extent 

No

extent 

No basis 

to judge 

1) Is well structured? 2 4 13 5 

2) Addresses issues of critical importance 

to U.S. international broadcasting? 

2 5 7 8 1 

3) Is likely to succeed in most aspects? 4 9 8 1 1 

4) Will be embraced by middle 

management? 

 4 7 11 2 

5) Will be embraced by the rank and file? 3 5 9 7 

Comments, if any. 
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 41 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

9

Q.10) In your opinion, what impact will the BBG’s new strategic planning initiative, “Marrying the 

Mission to the Market,” likely have on the following aspects of U.S. international broadcasting?

(Please check one box in each row.) 

Highly 

positive

impact 

Generally 

positive

impact 

No

Impact 

Generally 

negative

impact 

Highly 

negative

impact 

No basis 

to judge 

Don’t 

know/ no 

opinion 

1) Distribution 

Number of hours of 

transmission, transmission 

strength and quality, use of 

affiliates, use of technology, 

use of audience and marketing 

research. 

3 9 7 2 4 3 

2) Strategic Planning 

BBG and IBB strategic, 

technology, and workforce 

planning. 

3 6 4 5 3 6 1 

3) Performance Management 

Language Service Review 

process, entity annual program 

reviews, and research for 

annual program reviews. 

2 9 7 2 2 4 1 

4) Organizational Structure 

Management oversight by the 

Board of Governors, use of 

multiple broadcast entities, 

organizational placement of 

the IBB, new regional network 

approach, intra-agency 

coordination/guidance/leadership, firewall issues, status of 

some entities.

2 3 8 4 4 4 2 

5) Resource Issues and 

Organizational Capacities 

Current program funding and 

staff levels, staff skills, 

knowledge and training, 

technology and equipment, 

ability to compete and respond 

to crises, managerial 

flexibility.

2 4 4 8 4 3 2 

6) External Factors 

Perceived credibility of U.S. 

international broadcasting, 

image of the United States, 

lack of free media and civil 

liberties, jamming of U.S. 

broadcasts, potential 

audience’s lack of technology 

to hear broadcasts. 

1 5 7 6 4 2 3 

Comments, if any. 
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 42 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

10

Q.11) Overall, do you think that the BBG’s new strategic planning initiative, “Marrying the Mission to 

the Market,” will likely have a positive or a negative impact on U.S. international broadcasting’s 

ability to achieve its mission? 

1  Very positive 2

2  Generally positive 8

3  As positive as negative 9

4  Generally negative 5

5  Very negative 2

6  No basis to judge 2

7  Don’t know / No opinion 

Section 5: Assessment of Current Operations and Recent Changes to Service Delivery 

Q.12) The International Broadcasting Act says 

that language services need to reach 

"significant" audiences. In your opinion, 

to what extent are your language services 

actually reaching significant audiences? 

(Check one box.) 

1  Very great extent 5

2  Great extent 8

3  Moderate extent 10

4  Some or little 

extent

6

5  No extent 

6  No basis to judge 1

Comments, if any:

Q.13) Given the resources currently available to 

U.S International Broadcasting entities, 

which of the following best describes the 

number of language services offered by 

U.S. international broadcasting entities? 

(Check one box.) 

1  Too many language services 18

2  Just the right number of 

language services 

5

3  Too few language services 1

4  Not sure 

5  No basis to judge 3

Comments, if any:
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 43 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

11

Q.14) In the post-Cold War era, the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) 

has made shifts in resources. Do you 

believe that the BBG: 

(Check all that apply.) 

1 

Has made shifts that result in 

good use of resources 

5

2  Needs to make further shifts in 

resources 

11

3  Should have left resources 

allocated as they were 

4  Has made shifts that result in a 

poor use of resources 

13

5  Other (please explain in the 

comments)

6  Not sure 2

7  No basis to judge 2

Comments, if any:

Q.15) Based on your experience in broadcasting, 

how would you assess the current level of 

funding for U.S. international broadcasting 

relative to its mission: (Check one box.) 

1  More than 

adequate

1

2  Adequate 4

3  Less than 

adequate

23

4  Not sure 2

5  No basis to judge 

Comments, if any:

Q.16) In how many countries do you think there 

should be more than one U.S. international 

broadcaster providing service in any 

particular language? (Check one box.) 

1  In most countries 1

2  In many countries 4

3  In a few counties 12

4  In no countries 11

5  Not sure 

6  No basis to judge 1

Comments, if any:

Q.17) One current model of service delivery 

uses the same program stream, coordinates 

coverage, and has common production 

values. To what extent do you believe this 

model might be applicable to the countries 

served by your broadcasting entity? (Check

one box.) 

1  Very great extent 1

2  Great extent 5

3  Moderate extent 7

4  Some or little 

extent

3

5  No extent 5

6  Not sure 1

7  No basis to judge 5

Comments, if any:
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 44 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

12

Q.18) In your opinion, do VOA editorials have a 

positive or a negative impact in promoting 

U.S. foreign policy interests? 

1  Very positive 

2  Generally positive 3

3  As positive as negative 7

4  Generally negative 10

5  Very negative 4

6  No basis to judge 2

7  Don’t know / No opinion 4

Comments, if any:

Q.19) In your opinion, do VOA editorials have a 

positive or a negative effect on the credibility of 

U.S. international broadcasting? 

1  Very positive 

2  Generally positive 2

3  As positive as negative 5

4  Generally negative 11

5  Very negative 7

6  No basis to judge 2

7  Don’t know / No opinion 3

Comments, if any:
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 45 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

13

Section 6: Program Options 

Q.20) In your opinion, what impact would the following program options (identified by various contacts 

in our review) likely have on the ability of U.S. international broadcasting to achieve its mission? 

(Please check one box in each row.) 

Highly 

positive

impact 

Generally 

positive

impact 

No impact Generally 

negative

impact 

Highly 

negative

impact 

No basis to 

judge/ 

no opinion 

1) Consolidate VOA, the IBB, and the 

surrogates into one broadcasting entity 

headed by the Board of Governors. 

6 5 2 6 7 4 

2) Appoint a single individual as CEO 

for U.S. international broadcasting, and 

give that individual direct reporting 

responsibilities to the board. 

8 5 4 7 5 1 

3) Significantly reduce the overall 

number of language services in order to 

reprogram funds to higher priority 

services. 

9 9 4 6 2 

4) Use language service audience goals 

tailored to local circumstances (e.g., 5 

percent audience share in one market 

versus a 10 percent share in another 

market).

8 10 2 2 5 3 

5) Set language service audience goals 

by target audience (e.g., mass versus 

elites, under 30 versus over 30, men 

versus women, etc.). 

11 13 2 1 3 

6) Eliminate VOA editorials. 10 6 7 2 4 

7) Revamp/re-invent VOA editorials. 3 10 9 5 

8) Defederalize VOA (e.g., give VOA 

grantee status). 

11 7 6 1 4 

9) Defederalize IBB (e.g., give IBB 

grantee status). 

9 5 3 7 1 4 

10) Establish closer strategic 

coordination between the BBG and the 

State Dept. 

2 4 4 8 8 3 

11) Establish closer strategic 

coordination between the BBG and the 

White House. 

2 6 4 7 7 3 

12) Establish closer cooperation with 

other international broadcasters. 

6 11 9 1 2 

13) Establish a national strategic 

communications plan that provides 

guidance to all agencies involved in 

public diplomacy. 

4 10 3 5 5 2 

Comments, if any. 
Appendix III

Survey of Program Managers of U.S. 

International Broadcasting Entities

Page 46 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

14

Section 7: Background Questions 

Q.21) Which organization do you work for? 

(Please check one box.) 

1  IBB 2

2  VOA 10

3  WorldNet Television 4

4  Radio/TV/Marti 3

5  RFE/RL 5

6  RFA 3

7  Other, please specify 1

Q.22) Which of the following categories 

most closely matches your level within your 

organization?

1  Director of broadcasting entity 

(VOA, IBB, RFA, etc.) 

7

2  Program Manager 14

3  Regional Language Director 6

4  Other, please specify 2

Q.23) Please briefly describe the language services for which you are responsible:

Q.24) Other comments (Please continue on additional sheets, if necessary. Also, please feel free to 

attach any relevant documents you wish.)

Note: If you would like to send us any documents, please send them to: 

Melissa Pickworth 

Room 4440 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G St. NW 

Washington, DC 20548 

Contact information: If you would like us to contact you directly about an issue related to this survey, please 

provide your name and telephone number below. Any contacts we have with you will be strictly confidential. 

Name: ___________________________________________ 

Telephone number: _________________________________

Thanks for your assistance!
Page 47 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix IV

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 48 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting
Appendix IV

Comments from the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors

Page 49 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting
Page 50 GAO-03-772 U.S. International Broadcasting

Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

GAO Contact Diana Glod (202) 512-8945.

Acknowledgments In addition to the person named above, Michael ten Kate, Melissa 

Pickworth, and Janey Cohen made key contributions to this report.

Martin De Alteriis and Ernie Jackson also provided technical assistance.

(320159)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to 

a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00